Dutch Credits

[Daniel van Eijmeren]

PASCAL OOST to CHRIS HILBIG, 15-06-2004:

> Apart from being great and fun, creating Disney comics is also a job. 
> And a job needs to be rewarding. Considering it does not pay well, 
> there is no job-security whatever, and selling all publishing rights 
> to Disney takes away all possible future income from re-publishing, 
> it's becoming hard to feel motivated to work for Disney comics.
> Crediting his work could be one (cheap) way to help a artist feel
> appreciated.

I fully agree. 

What I basically meant in my last e-mails (just before my computer broke 
down on June 14), is that the Dutch weekly *Donald Duck Weekblad* should 
avoid getting too *factual* about the adventures in the issue, which IMO 
would destroy the atmosphere of this particular comic, which has a long 
tradition of being some kind of weekly "report" of adventures in the 
Disney universe. 

A universe were Donald and other Disney characters even *anwer* the 
reader's letters personally, in the letter column.

(This "childish" approach and tradition might make foreign people think 
that the Dutch weekly is for silly kids and crazy adults, but at least 
in my opinion, Donald Duck Weekblad also has a long-time tradition of 
publishing the best of the best Disney comics (IMO), including stories 
by Barks, Gottfredson, Taliafferro, Jippes, Heymans, Hubbard, Milton, 
etc. etc.)

I do think that artists and writers should be credited in comics, also 
within Donald Duck Weekblad, but on a *separate* page, as part of the 
*editorial* stuff. The stuff that kids and dreamers don't want to read. 

And preferably those credits should not too detailed. I think that 
"Junior Woodchucks: Daan Jippes, Carl Barks" would be enough. Excluding 
all kind of background facts like: script, inking, drawing, year of 
creation, blah blah, etcetera, as part of a contents list or - even 
worser - under the opening page of each individual story. I think that 
would ruin the atmosphere of the Dutch weekly.

(BTW. With Donald Duck Weekblad, I also mean the comic Katrien Duck, which 
is centered around Daisy Duck. That comic appears a few times a year, but 
basically has the same approach as Donald Duck Weekblad. There, it's Daisy 
who mostly answers the reader's letters.)

As a fan and collector, I LOVE all kind of detailed facts. The more the 
better. But I think there are better sources for that than in Donald Duck 
Weekblad. For example, as part of indexes, on paper or on internet. Or in 
*other* Disney comics, like those by Gladstone and Gemstone. Those are 
even known and appreciated for giving background information to readers.

I think the Dutch monthly Donald Duck Extra would be a nice issue to become 
an equivalent of the Gladstone/Gemstone comics, with background facts 
included. This is because Donald Duck Extra seems to be aiming at older 
kids, students, and adults.

The Dutch albums already do give credits and (some) background information. 
I think it fits nice, as I look at these albums as being intended for the 
fans under the readers.

But I'm also thinking of a negative side of giving credits within issues 
themselves: What if the credits are wrong or discussable? This happens 
regularly. And I believe it's rarely corrected afterwards. (Or am I wrong 
about that?)

And (IMO) more important: What if the editors make changes against the 
artist's intentions? Then the artist might not *want* to be credited, 
but he/she will always be too late in requesting an alias. And the story 
might be reprinted at anytime, anywhere, without any control on the 
credits. If only because of database differences, and further mistakes.

That's why I like fanzines and internet. If the source is steady and 
available, one can even read about changes made in (some) stories. 
Depending on the willingness (and time) of the people behind the source, 
it's easier to discuss and correct mistakes.

So much for now. I'm going to read the credits discussion in full, later.

--- Daniël